Consumer Action Group envelope labels
You are part of a community of over 195,000 people. Let your bank know that you won't give in. Display one of our labels on your envelopes. Full description here
Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels £3.50 inc p&p
|
Do your Internet search here Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London
NW11 7PE
| | | | Do your Internet search here:-
| | | CAG Announcements | |
Welcome Guest
Please register
Registration is free
There are no charges for using any of the facilities of this website.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ.
You will have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You will also have to register to access our template letters and claims forms
registration is free
Are you being threatened over debts more than 6 years old? This may be unfair
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Bought an extended warranty? Not satisfied?
The warranty may be an example of unfair trading
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out Are you a victim of unfair trading? Check it out The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008 Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out | | | | | | Welcome to The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group
Before beginning to claim your bank charges be sure to read the FAQ by clicking the link above. Read it carefully and also read as much of the forum material as you can manage before you start claiming your bank charges refund.
You will have to register before you can post or view the materials which may assist you in reclaiming your penalty charges: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Understand what you are doing and you will be able to Reclaim the Right more effectively.
Why don't you come and introduce yourself in the Welcome section at the top of the forum. Then have a look around the rest of it.
Do not post or start claiming until you have read the entire FAQ section and step by step guides and you have a good basic idea of what to do and of the layout of the forum.
Good luck claiming your bank charges. We strongly suggest that you register under a UserID and not your own name |  | |
13th April 2006, 21:07
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 Found it now. This is being discussed in the general forums under the OFT ruling and is 'Sticky'.
Coming back to Cahoot (the reason for this thread/post), they've always been really helpful with me, and mostly refunded the first type of charge on the first occasion of each one, when requested. EG: First DD, returned, First overlimit, returned etcetera, but I digress (don't feel sorry for them!)
I've sent my DSIR (data subject information request, why does everyone call it somthing different?) today and await to see how much the charges add up to.
I had a credit card and current account with them, whilst a student. I imagine the charges to be large as they were generally used as most student accounts are (near to the limit).
Any special rules on filing for Current Accounts and Credit Cards simultaneously? |
| |
26th April 2006, 19:01
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Gold Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 Quote: |
Originally Posted by gumbodave Have now received a written defence from Cahoot (Abbey).
Highlights include:
'The Claimant's contention that the said fees are uneforceable and/or are 'penalty charges' is denied. The fees reflect and are proortionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimant's breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage suffered by the Defendant.'
they go on to say:
'Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.'
then:
'No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.'
They have offered a £475 'goodwill gesture' as a full and final settlement.
Any advice would be appreciated? Does anyone think they actually go to court, or should I call their bluff? | Seems no-one else has responded to this... So I'll give it a go...
With any of this it all depends on your own pov and how much risk you are willing to take... I personally believe that if pushed they will back down and give you everything that you are owed.
It could go one of several ways if it does make it to court.
a) The court could find that these are indeed penalty charges and therefore order them to be repaid in full.
b) The court agrees that they are payment for service but not proportionate. This would then lead to one of 2 outcomes
i) The bank would demonstrate what a proportionate fee is which would involve them demonstrating how the cost(/loss) is calculated and then would have to repay you the difference - highly unlikely this has been asked for on many occasions always leading to silence in response
ii) The bank would refuse to demonstrate proportionality and would therefore have to repay you in full.
c) The court may find the charges proportionate and you lose the case  However I believe (as do most on here !) that this is so unlikely that the risk is almost negligible, especially in mind that the OFT has said that certainly anything over £12 is indefensible.
I think that this is a fairly standard scare tactic to try to mitigate their losses.
As ever with (I believe most if not) all advice given on this website, I am not qualified to give any advice and you are duly warned that any decisions are your own decisions made on your own account and no liability will be accepted for any advice followed ! Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts. |
| |
27th April 2006, 14:20
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 Thanks Dinghy,
Wise words, and very valuable I feel. As such have responded to their defence (and their offer of half the payment) as follows:
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 April 2006.
Dear [Cahoot solicitor],
I have carefully considered the defence filed on behalf of Abbey National plc. and have come to the conclusion that I must reject your offer of £457.00 in full and final settlement.
I have no need or desire to avoid filling in and returning the Allocation Questionnaire I have received (which I will be sending to Leeds County Court as instructed to arrive no later than 10th May 2006), and have absolutely no qualms about taking the matter to Court for a judge to decide the outcome.
For your information, I will not be seeking a 1 month postponement of further action so we may have more time to reach settlement.
It would be interesting, for my information, if you could provide a true indication of Abbey's administrative expenses incurred as a result of me going over my overdraft limit. I realise an organisation of Abbey's standing would have analysed such costs and would appreciate it if you could furnish me with the details.
I thank you for your time and hope to here from you soon regarding the costing details.
Yours sincerely,
Gumbodave!
Thought I might as well see if I could get in writing what they think the costs should be (though doubt they will respond with the figures). I'll see if they contact me in the next fw days and then get ready for court. Presumably if they do admit in court to their actual costs, that figure could be used in future as an estimate for other cases?
The fight continues. |
| |
27th April 2006, 14:25
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 p.s. Don't worry Dinghy, I really appreciate the advice, and wouldn't hold it against you or the Bank/Consumer Action Group if it all goes horribly wrong. I think this cause is too important to let the creditors get away with treading on consumers rights just so they can make a shed load of cash. The really losers are the ones who are so skint they cannot afford the internet to check this site out. I work for a debt charity and have been printing out the step by step guide and template letters and sending them to clients. Hopefully some of them can start getting some of their cash back too.
That's why I would be well up for court, to try to set a precedent that all banks/credit card companies would have to stick to without everyone having to go through all this to claim back retrospectively. It would be a mild disappointment if they bottled it. We'll see.
Last edited by gumbodave; 27th April 2006 at 16:16.
|
| |
27th April 2006, 18:20
|
#16 (permalink)
| | Gold Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 Quote: |
Originally Posted by gumbodave Thanks Dinghy,
Wise words, and very valuable I feel. | You haven't clicked my scales though...
Best of luck with it... My claim was issued exactly a week ago... Quote: |
Originally Posted by gumbodave p.s. Don't worry Dinghy, I really appreciate the advice, and wouldn't hold it against you or the Bank/Consumer Action Group if it all goes horribly wrong. | I'm sure you wouldn't but there's a helluva lot of litigious people round here @ the moment !
It never hurts to be too careful !  |
| |
2nd May 2006, 13:59
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 - RESULT! 'You haven't clicked my scales though...' I have now, Dinghy!
Looks like Cahoot don't fancy court afterall! Received this today:
'Mr Hanson,
In view of the amount that you are claiming and the legal costs that Abbey would incur in arranging defence and representation at the Court, the decision has been made that on this occasion, and in this case, your claim will be settled. However, this is on a "without prejudice" basis and is entirely without any admission of liability.
'I have therefore arranged for the sum of £833.59 (representing the claim of £753.59 and the Court fee of £80.00) to be paid into your account today in full and final settlement of your claim.
I should be grateful if you would inform the Court that this matter has now been resolved.'
Hope this gives the rest of you renewed hope that they won't go the full distance.
Good luck all!
Last edited by gumbodave; 2nd May 2006 at 22:06.
|
| |
3rd May 2006, 08:53
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Gold Account Customer | Re: Hanson v Cahoot - 6QZ18789 - RESULT! Quote: |
Originally Posted by gumbodave 'You haven't clicked my scales though...' I have now, Dinghy! | Ta ! Quote: |
Originally Posted by gumbodave Looks like Cahoot don't fancy court afterall! Received this today:
'Mr Hanson,
In view of the amount that you are claiming and the legal costs that Abbey would incur in arranging defence and representation at the Court, the decision has been made that on this occasion, and in this case, your claim will be settled. However, this is on a "without prejudice" basis and is entirely without any admission of liability.
'I have therefore arranged for the sum of £833.59 (representing the claim of £753.59 and the Court fee of £80.00) to be paid into your account today in full and final settlement of your claim.
I should be grateful if you would inform the Court that this matter has now been resolved.'
Hope this gives the | | |